Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSS
New at Reason
Daniel Rothschild continues his investigation into the myths of Hurricane Katrina and the Gulf Coast.
Comments to "New at Reason":
Why aren't all the greenies in the Democratic Party eager to let the low-lying Nineth Ward go back to being what it was before humans got involved: a big swamp. (Or, if you prefer, an eco-diverse wetland.) Destroying wetlands is bad, but spending $40 billion to keep land from getting wet is good?
Matt | August 30, 2007, 4:44pm | #
Richard,You dont hear it so much now, which is unfortunate. But I can tell you anecdotally, in my Coastal Geomorphology class in 2002, my greenie Professor (Ph.D from LSU) predicted the Katrina disaster to a T.
The green argument against N.O. and the southern Mississippi in general is that the levees have 'straightened' the twitching cats tail that was the Miss river. Thus, sand empties directly into the gulf, the existing land subsides, equaling less coastal wetlands to absorb hurricane storm surges, equaling more destruction in a storm. And so on. Its quite compelling; facts and historical observation support the theory. But its much larger in scope than just the ninth ward. Their problems are more acutely affected by the spilling of 'Lake' Champlain.
Joe | August 30, 2007, 5:31pm | #
I really must contend with your comparison of the situations in New Orleans and the Gulf Coast. The Gulf Coast was most certainly not hit by a "moderately sized" storm. Katrina was degraded from a Cat 5 to a Cat 4 just as it made landfall, putting wind speeds right at 150mph. Also, there was over 30 feet of water pushed on shore in the matter of a few minutes, whereas in New Orleans, water rose about 20 feet over the course of a day. Certainly a far cry from the implied drama of a "flood of biblical proportions."Also, your assertion that the CSX rail line made a significant difference in damage level shows your lack of knowledge of the geography and elevation of the Gulf Coast. The rail line was topped by water and washed out in multiple locations across the Coast and in many places is not even close to being 30 ft above sea level. Many heavily flooded areas were more than 10 miles from the beach and were flooded by the many waterways that permeate the Coast.
Note that I do not contend that more damage was done on the Coast than in New Orleans, just that your characterization of the difference skews toward New Orleans more than the data would support.
Xboy | August 30, 2007, 8:03pm | #
"But its much larger in scope than just the ninth ward. Their problems are more acutely affected by the spilling of 'Lake' Champlain."Sheesh! Who knew that a lake in New York State could have such a big impact on a city in Louisiana?
I thought the disaster was due to the failure of substandrd floodwalls built by the Corps of Engineers.
Other Matt | August 30, 2007, 8:29pm | #
I thought the disaster was due to the failure of substandrd floodwalls built by the Corps of Engineers.That's what you get when you get an organization more concerned with paperwork than what's really going on in the field.
rho | August 31, 2007, 12:24pm | #
Also, there was over 30 feet of water pushed on shore in the matter of a few minutes, whereas in New Orleans, water rose about 20 feet over the course of a day. Certainly a far cry from the implied drama of a "flood of biblical proportions."He does make an important distinction. The water rushing in and out of the Mississippi Gulf Coast did a lot of damage, and flooded a lot of buildings, but it didn't sit and steep. The 9th ward did, for a long time.
If you're in an area where the storm surge hits directly, it will push big things around and cause a lot of damage. This happens, generally, for a mile or two inland. But if you're just caught in the rising flood waters, you'll have flood damage, but it won't necessarily mean damage to the structure. But if that water sits long enough, it will damage the structure. That's what happened in the 9th ward and other places in N.O.
Rick | August 31, 2007, 2:45pm | #
Of course New Orleans gets the attention, it is a major metro are, and is the economic engine of the south.New Orleans dies or slows down, the entire area will be affected in a very adverse manner.
If there was ANY attraction to travelling/living in the Gulf South...especially in Louisiana...it was BECAUSE of New Orleans.
The surrounding areas are important because of the people who live there, but in the big picture no one really cares about the "geography".
Joe | August 31, 2007, 4:04pm | #
I thought the disaster was due to the failure of substandrd floodwalls built by the Corps of Engineers.Actually, the problem was that the CoE didn't build them, the local (read: corrupt) contractors built them, pocketing much of the funds and using substandard materials in place of the CoE's requirements.
First, New Orleans is on the Mississippi River, not the Gulf Coast. Second, the entire Gulf Coast of Mississippi was wiped off the map for miles inland. Combined, the cities of the Coast that were leveled completely are a much larger loss than that which New Orleans endured. Third, Mississippi does have Republican leadership in the Governor's office, but the Governor is the weakest office in the state. The state of Mississippi has been run, since it's inclusion into the union, by Democrats. The legislature is the most powerful organ in Mississippi politics and it is an almost exclusively Democrat organization. I love it when outsiders who nothing about our state's politics, much less the damage done by Katrina, start throwing their two cents in. Finally, the difference between the welfare city/state of New Orleans and the Mississippi Gulf Coast is that after the storm, Mississippians didn't stand around complaining and blaming the federal government for an unavoidable gigantic disaster that nobody could possibly plan for.
wally the bird | September 2, 2007, 3:49pm | #
And last year was suppost to be the worse year for hurricanes becuase of GLOBAL WARMING and even those idiots from GREENPEACE wanted them to name hurricanes for industries they said were cuasing GLOBAL WARMING proving only a jerk would have anything to do with GREENPEACEI recently watched a program that showed a large area of subsidised housing in New Orleans that wasn't in the flood and had no water damage -but the people living there were forced out anyway, made to leave behind anything they could not carry. They still have no place to go. Now the interesting thing is that this housing project is very close to the 'quarter' and the land has become extremely valuable real estate and in demand by developers.....dosen't take an Einstein to see that the developers have won over the poor that were living in this nice, well cared for area of subsidized housing. It's all still just sitting there, borded up- and dry. And one other question- why did it take a reporter from the BBC to report on this? Why hasn't the American media covered it? Why, indeed. There are as many unaswered questions about situations in New Orleans as there are about Katrina. And it looks like the American media is content to let them all simmer rather than expose them to the light.
Jim Barnes | September 6, 2007, 10:07pm | #
I lost 3 new houses in Gulfport to Katrina. They were on Beach Blvd. and 14 feet above sea level. After Katrina I had 3 slabs. There were scrape marks in the trees 20 feet above the ground. To say that New Orleans suffered a flood of Biblical proportions while Mississippi had only a medium hurricaine is ridiculous. The Mississippi Gulf coast was destroyed, New Orleans was only flooded. If your 5 year study is founded on the premise you state, it is based on fiction and should be treated as such. I have a video of the entire stretch of the Mississippi coast from Long Beach to Biloxi. I made it the day before the storm as I was leaving. I would be glad to provide it to you as part of your study. I also have a video made a week later. The destruction is indescribable. Also many areas north of the railroad were flooded from water backed up in the bayous and bays.
